Bilfinger SE holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and valuation adding further support. AECOM still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ACM: Russell 1000, GBF.DE: STOXX 600).
Growth still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. Bilfinger SE leads by 10 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Engineering & Construction
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ACM and GBF.DE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how AECOM and Bilfinger SE each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Bilfinger SE is cheaper, but AECOM is still stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ACM and GBF.DE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
AECOM still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Growth settles the comparison, while pricing and valuation keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the ACM vs GBF.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ACM and GBF.DE each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.